It could be something like, "The nation faces an emergency, and I have regretfully concluded that I may not be the person to save us from it. I am absolutely confident that there are many Dems who can meet this moment, and that the party will choose the right one." (still, lots of other probs, tho)
If you'll forgive commentary from a random Democrat, a statement like this reads as a complete humiliation for Biden. "You trusted me to lead you. I give up. If you supported me for my record, that meant nothing. I have no idea what we should do next except that my leadership has been a failure."
I genuinely don't get this. People can still rightly think his record is enormously admirable, and that he has done great things for the country, while also thinking his moment has passed. Also, no one is saying he should say, "I have no idea what to do next," this is sheer invention
this all works in theory, and you certainly make compelling points about the current risks. but it would also be framed as the single biggest act of weakness by a US prez ever, no matter how articulate the rationale, and given how the media has reacted to a poor hour-and-a-half....
You said is plainly - He has to be able to guarantee that he doesn’t fuck up like this again. He needs to ID why it happened, and remove the circumstances that enabled it. If they cannot be removed, he needs to step aside because he can’t survive another one of these.
Appreciate the response! Apologies if I'm just misunderstanding "there are many Dems who can meet this moment, and that the party will choose the right one." I feel like-the party did choose! I distinctly remember voting for him to lead us only three months ago, because I trusted his judgment!
To not only reject the voters' choice but to not even have an opinion on the next leader of the party - just leaving it to be figured out by someone else through some other method - does read to me as totally abdicating leadership. Just my single and (very) limited perspective. Thanks!
This is straight up delusional. If Biden can't lead then the woman millions voted to take his place will take his place, full stop. All Biden delegates would choose her anyway. Harris is perfectly capable of repeating every day "this rapist felon is lying about everything"
I'm a little puzzled by this. The argument in my piece is primarily about the need for Bidens to seriously engage with whether he's got what it takes to avoid any more immense mistakes.
I'm not a big advocate for an open convention, and I'm not sure why I'm being pigeonholed into that role.
If you want to be an advocate for serious no BS analysis of Biden not being up for the run then you need to be serious that Harris is the only logical, political, legal, coalition keeping, etc... alternative that exists
The starting point here is whether the Bidens are even going to take my question seriously. Do you agree with my framing of the question?
newrepublic.com/article/1832...
I agree with the framing in general the problem is claiming one can envision a successful open convention. You actually can't at this point. It is pure nonsense.
I disagree with the idea of us accepting that our candidate has to be perfect, that’s a bar nobody can clear, especially a man who was the walking gaffe factory we cringed about in the Obama years. Why is there no “fire your whole campaign staff immediately” middle ground?
For example, his debate strategy was awful. He does the best when he just lets loose (“will you just shut up man”) and is himself without worrying about the gaffes or the stutter. But that wasn’t what happened there. His campaign staff has sucked in other ways too (as Jon Stewart called out earlier)
I'm in bong rip territory here, but the DNC would have to structure an open convention vote so 2nd place gets VP. The main coalition problem with an open convention where the winner picks their VP is that it looks pretty zero-sum for each party faction.
Also a question for a (possibly-bong-ripping) campaign finance lawyer: where does the already-raised presidential campaign money and infrastructure go under various scenarios? Can an extant VP nominee inherit it but not someone who isn't already on the ticket?
You're forgetting the fundamental rule of the last 5-ish years of jurisprudence:
Election finance laws are whatever you want them to be and completely unenforceable regardless.
Makes me wonder what a campaign finance lawyer would say about Trump -- or a similar non-former-incumbent challenger -- being in the same situation with no VP nominee.
I used to think Trump was enough of a polarizing figure to gets Dems to unite no matter what, but Corbyn's experience in the UK made me revisit how much I think operatives, donors and other elected officials are willing to sandbag when it's not their guy or top-of-ticket doesn't make them feel heard
i respect this engaged dialogue here, but i really do wonder what is going to happen when everyone forgets about this debate in a week and the polls stay the same. lefty media is kind of shitting all over itself and there will be a big mess to clean up
It's not lefty media at the core, it's undisciplined Democratic House members anonymously panic-texting journalists and big donors publicly calling on Biden to step down. They're creating more bad vibes! They're doing bad campaign strategy! It's maddening!
Big distinction between Sanders and Warren is that 90% of folks in Democratic politics probably felt like they would not have a job or influence or even access under a Sanders administration. Biden and Sanders's work on the Unity Commission was a necessity in 2020.
The Dems are far more willing and likely to deal with a too-old Biden in the White House than the GOP is to deal with an out of control Trump.
We had a chance during the primary to deal with this, now it's better left until after the election.
It would work if there was an idea that the Democratic electorate held the Democratic Party in high esteem. But the party just is its president. He chooses, and he chose Harris in 2020
But the party already chose who would be tagged in Biden was incapacitated - Harris! This is the situation that the entire role is designed to address. Especially in the context of an old, experienced President
I feel like everyone’s forgotten the SOTU was a barn burner where he compared trump to Hitler and Putin and made the case for reeelection on the basis of his record. It doesn’t make sense for a president successful in domestic policy with a strong economy to resign because his vocal cords are weak
The most glaring problem is that if he says that he's not endorsing his own VP. Also, how can he be the right person to be President, right now, if he's not the person to deal with an emergency? A Chinese attack on Taiwan would be a far more taxing emergency than a faltering election campaign.
Super interesting discussion. Yesterday I was leaning toward Biden shouldn’t step aside but today I’m not sure I know where I stand. It feels risky either way.
